Going from a good job to law school Forum

[choculamaviva]

I think that if you think BigLaw will be less mind numbing, you are in for a disappointment. Also, to the posters who think law school teaches you to a "new way to think" or to "think like a lawyer..." - this is just law school marketing BS. I will agree the degree is more challenging than an MBA, in large part because grades don't matter at top MBAs and students can pick and choose BS classes if they wish. That said, if a person were to be diligent in the right MBA classes, it can build certain skills. And law school is still not all that hard. I was Coif at Chicago. I didn't study all that much. But it didn't make me "think like a lawyer." Outside of slightly improving my writing ability, it taught me very little.

"Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence."

I'll gladly highlight the part that is wrong. You're making assertions with no experience. I don't take sexual advice from virgins and if I wanted advice about law school, I would ask someone who went. No crutch, just common sense.

Some people hate law school, some love it. Some hate college, others love it, some hate shellfish, others love it, ect. I'm sorry for those who have had a shit experience, or witnessed the shit experiences of others - among my friends and acquaintances at top law schools, I can say that those who hated law school had reasons to do so beyond the erudition, the curve, or the corruption of the establishment; they were intellectually self-indulgent and stunk of special snowflake. Others have liked it, and more importantly, love the legal work they are doing post-grad. Call it mindless, but the reality is while both corporate and public interest-related work have their dryness and their tedium, there is interesting material to be found in transaction and litigation. Of course law school is a horrible way to escape frustrations on that level, but to damn the entire industry as morbidly dull remains an exaggeration.

An exaggeration, yes. But job satisfaction is extremely low. Don't spend 300k on a 5% chance at happiness. IMO, the breakdown is roughly 75% hate, 20% tolerate for the money, 5% enjoy.

Also, FWIW, I think law is a safer financial decision than IB for your twenties. My understanding is that IB has a few rainmaking types, but many more who make an entry-level salary somewhere in the low six figures (I seem to recall $110-120k thrown around as a figure). If we posit that Biglaw provides the top 5k or so jobs per year, I would be willing to bet the median of the top 5k IB jobs per year is lower, even if maybe the average is higher (skewed by the rainmakers). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even in the bulge bracket, the analysts mostly make $75-125k for the first year or two. I think law is the only profession where it is realistic to presume that you might be making $160k at age 25.

[/quote]

It is certainly one of the few, but if you have to pay sticker or even close, you'll be living poor and paying off loans during your 4-ish years in Biglaw, so you won't be seeing the money.

To the OP: Don't go to law school. It is VERY unlikely to increase your job satisfaction and will likely cost you a great deal of money.

[jingosaur]

I don't take sexual advice from virgins

Obviously, you've never seen The Love Guru.

But on a more serious note, I'm 100% aware that if I end up in BigLaw, the grass will not be greener. I've read the blogs and the horror stories and I feel like on the whole, a BigLaw job in the short term won't be better or worse than my current job even with the extra money. Where I believe a JD/MBA will help me is for the long term goals. Staying at my current job offers me 0 chance at achieving any long term career goal in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I think it will start hindering my goals pretty soon. The JD/MBA (or maybe just MBA or maybe just JD depending on the admissions cycle) will give me some chance at those goals (maybe 25%) and will put me in a job out of school that's the same or better than my current job in terms of satisfaction, work/life balance, compensation, etc. To me that's worth the $320k or so in 3 years of opportunity costs. That number is from ~$200k in foregone after-tax income and ~$120k in tuition (although I'm hoping for this number to be lower). I don't include COL because I'm paying COL regardless.

[timbs4339]

I don't take sexual advice from virgins

Obviously, you've never seen The Love Guru.

But on a more serious note, I'm 100% aware that if I end up in BigLaw, the grass will not be greener. I've read the blogs and the horror stories and I feel like on the whole, a BigLaw job in the short term won't be better or worse than my current job even with the extra money. Where I believe a JD/MBA will help me is for the long term goals. Staying at my current job offers me 0 chance at achieving any long term career goal in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I think it will start hindering my goals pretty soon. The JD/MBA (or maybe just MBA or maybe just JD depending on the admissions cycle) will give me some chance at those goals (maybe 25%) and will put me in a job out of school that's the same or better than my current job in terms of satisfaction, work/life balance, compensation, etc. To me that's worth the $320k or so in 3 years of opportunity costs. That number is from ~$200k in foregone after-tax income and ~$120k in tuition (although I'm hoping for this number to be lower). I don't include COL because I'm paying COL regardless.

Why do you need the JD in the first place? Couldn't you could go more directly into the field working for a PE/VC firm with an MBA?

The JD is not going to teach you about corporate structure or finance or any of that. You'd need to work biglaw. And I'm not sure how necessary that is if you could just go straight to the same point with an MBA.

Also, if you don't have an LSAT score this exercise is pointless.

[jingosaur]

^Going directly from a PE/VC firm with an MBA in today's economy with my work experience is like going into in-house immediately after law school. The reason why the top MBA programs' job stats have P/E and VC placement percentages is because those are people who already had those jobs who went back after getting an MBA because they couldn't find anything better.

From what I've researched, a lot of the top JD/MBA programs are built for what I want to do long term and I think it's a good fit as long as it's not too expensive. And as far as LSAT scores go, I have a 169 and 170 on 2 attempts. I'm scheduled to take it a third time in October.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

"Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence."

I'll gladly highlight the part that is wrong. You're making assertions with no experience. I don't take sexual advice from virgins and if I wanted advice about law school, I would ask someone who went. No crutch, just common sense.

That's an argument from authority, which is a subset of ad hominem. It's usually a logical fallacy because it takes the form of questioning credentials rather than the substance of an argument. "You have less experience" is not a concrete reason why an assertion is wrong. The evidence I use in my posts is a combination of a) publicly available facts, and b) Anecdotal evidence collected from TLS, other web-based sources, and in-person conversations. I then use that information to make logical inferences and sometimes share my opinion on some particular situation based on that evidence. There's nothing I say that would require experience to know. Seriously, please tell me if you ever come across something I say that it would be impossible for a 0L to know. My assertion ITT was that the range of job satisfaction in Biglaw was broad, even if the average seemed to be relatively low. There's nothing in that statement that a 0L couldn't know. That statement is just as valid now as it would be if I were a fifth-year associate. So again, the experience factor is nearly always irrelevant. And when I share an opinion, it's particularly pointless, because you can only disagree with an opinion; it can't be "wrong."

Or to continue with your analogy that 0Ls are like virgins, nothing I say (or any 0L says, for that matter) is like sharing our sexual experiences, we're saying factual things like "some people use condoms during sex" or sharing opinions like "I don't think people should have sex until they're married"--situations in which a virgin's ideas would be, ceteris paribus, just as valid as Wilt Chamberlain's.

[blsingindisguise]

That's an argument from authority, which is a subset of ad hominem. It's usually a logical fallacy because it takes the form of questioning credentials rather than the substance of an argument. "You have less experience" is not a concrete reason why an assertion is wrong. The evidence I use in my posts is a combination of a) publicly available facts, and b) Anecdotal evidence collected from TLS, other web-based sources, and in-person conversations. I then use that information to make logical inferences and sometimes share my opinion on some particular situation based on that evidence. There's nothing I say that would require experience to know. Seriously, please tell me if you ever come across something I say that it would be impossible for a 0L to know. My assertion ITT was that the range of job satisfaction in Biglaw was broad, even if the average seemed to be relatively low. There's nothing in that statement that a 0L couldn't know. That statement is just as valid now as it would be if I were a fifth-year associate. So again, the experience factor is nearly always irrelevant. And when I share an opinion, it's particularly pointless, because you can only disagree with an opinion; it can't be "wrong."

Or to continue with your analogy that 0Ls are like virgins, nothing I say (or any 0L says, for that matter) is like sharing our sexual experiences, we're saying factual things like "some people use condoms during sex" or sharing opinions like "I don't think people should have sex until they're married"--situations in which a virgin's ideas would be, ceteris paribus, just as valid as Wilt Chamberlain's.

good grief

[blsingindisguise]

Sure there is material that is interesting to a certain minority of people in litigation and transactional biglaw, but most people are pretty bad estimators of whether they're in that small minority. Saying "some people like biglaw and some people don't" is sort of like saying "some people like being brutally bullwhipped during sex and some people don't." It kind of flattens the reality.

[Rahviveh]

"Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence."

I'll gladly highlight the part that is wrong. You're making assertions with no experience. I don't take sexual advice from virgins and if I wanted advice about law school, I would ask someone who went. No crutch, just common sense.

That's an argument from authority, which is a subset of ad hominem. It's usually a logical fallacy because it takes the form of questioning credentials rather than the substance of an argument. "You have less experience" is not a concrete reason why an assertion is wrong. The evidence I use in my posts is a combination of a) publicly available facts, and b) Anecdotal evidence collected from TLS, other web-based sources, and in-person conversations. I then use that information to make logical inferences and sometimes share my opinion on some particular situation based on that evidence. There's nothing I say that would require experience to know. Seriously, please tell me if you ever come across something I say that it would be impossible for a 0L to know. My assertion ITT was that the range of job satisfaction in Biglaw was broad, even if the average seemed to be relatively low. There's nothing in that statement that a 0L couldn't know. That statement is just as valid now as it would be if I were a fifth-year associate. So again, the experience factor is nearly always irrelevant. And when I share an opinion, it's particularly pointless, because you can only disagree with an opinion; it can't be "wrong."

Or to continue with your analogy that 0Ls are like virgins, nothing I say (or any 0L says, for that matter) is like sharing our sexual experiences, we're saying factual things like "some people use condoms during sex" or sharing opinions like "I don't think people should have sex until they're married"--situations in which a virgin's ideas would be, ceteris paribus, just as valid as Wilt Chamberlain's.

Shut the fuck up

[UVAIce]

It may be a fallacy when using deduction - it certainly isn't the case that a virgin's (or 0L's) advice is necessarily not true - but it certainly isn't a bad argument when using inductive reasoning (think statistics). I feel as if I'm more likely to get good advice from someone who has actually done something than someone who has not done it at all. Also, quoting statistics and information from secondary sources without the context to properly deliver the information can lead to a lot of bad advice being given. Such as, do you know why people really don't like big law? Why do the people who enjoy it do so? I would much rather hear that advice from a 2nd or 3rd year associate. Also, I feel that a lot of what you, and others, do is copy and paste the information that others have posted in this forum, which I really don't feel is helpful.

Thanks but no thanks.

[UVAIce]

"Yeah, I'm not afraid of this stupid "LOL UR SO STUPID 0L" shit anymore. It's a crutch used by people who aren't content to just disagree with an opinion, the other person has to be WRONG. You know how I can tell this argument from authority crap is lazy? Because it's rarely, if ever, accompanied with concrete reasons for explaining why someone's wrong. Seriously, any time you feel compelled to do this with me or anyone else, highlight the part you think is wrong and say why you think it's wrong, offering supporting evidence."

I'll gladly highlight the part that is wrong. You're making assertions with no experience. I don't take sexual advice from virgins and if I wanted advice about law school, I would ask someone who went. No crutch, just common sense.

That's an argument from authority, which is a subset of ad hominem. It's usually a logical fallacy because it takes the form of questioning credentials rather than the substance of an argument. "You have less experience" is not a concrete reason why an assertion is wrong. The evidence I use in my posts is a combination of a) publicly available facts, and b) Anecdotal evidence collected from TLS, other web-based sources, and in-person conversations. I then use that information to make logical inferences and sometimes share my opinion on some particular situation based on that evidence. There's nothing I say that would require experience to know. Seriously, please tell me if you ever come across something I say that it would be impossible for a 0L to know. My assertion ITT was that the range of job satisfaction in Biglaw was broad, even if the average seemed to be relatively low. There's nothing in that statement that a 0L couldn't know. That statement is just as valid now as it would be if I were a fifth-year associate. So again, the experience factor is nearly always irrelevant. And when I share an opinion, it's particularly pointless, because you can only disagree with an opinion; it can't be "wrong."

Or to continue with your analogy that 0Ls are like virgins, nothing I say (or any 0L says, for that matter) is like sharing our sexual experiences, we're saying factual things like "some people use condoms during sex" or sharing opinions like "I don't think people should have sex until they're married"--situations in which a virgin's ideas would be, ceteris paribus, just as valid as Wilt Chamberlain's.

Shut the fuck up

+1

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

It may be a fallacy when using deduction - it certainly isn't the case that a virgin's (or 0L's) advice is necessarily not true - but it certainly isn't a bad argument when using inductive reasoning (think statistics). I feel as if I'm more likely to get good advice from someone who has actually done something than someone who has not done it at all. Also, quoting statistics and information from secondary sources without the context to properly deliver the information can lead to a lot of bad advice being given. Such as, do you know why people really don't like big law? Why do the people who enjoy it do so? I would much rather hear that advice from a 2nd or 3rd year associate. Also, I feel that a lot of what you, and others, do is copy and paste the information that others have posted in this forum, which I really don't feel is helpful.

Thanks but no thanks.

Sure, in some circumstances the information delivered secondhand is not as good as a primary source (for example, 0L's perspective on attitudes toward Biglaw being limited to what he/she has heard rather than direct experience). I, (just like most 0Ls) stay away from the things that I can't know, like offering advice on how to succeed in law school, or what the culture of a specific firm is like. In that, direct experience is much more important. But most of the time a poster shits on someone for being a 0L, it isn't for something that requires direct experience. There's value in sharing information/perspectives even if we haven't yet done the things we hope to do in the future. It just doesn't do any good for anyone to shit on 0Ls for posting without correct the incorrect information--no one learns anything.

[blsingindisguise]

Sure, in some circumstances the information delivered secondhand is not as good as a primary source (for example, 0L's perspective on attitudes toward Biglaw being limited to what he/she has heard rather than direct experience). I, (just like most 0Ls) stay away from the things that I can't know, like offering advice on how to succeed in law school, or what the culture of a specific firm is like. In that, direct experience is much more important. But most of the time a poster shits on someone for being a 0L, it isn't for something that requires direct experience. There's value in sharing information/perspectives even if we haven't yet done the things we hope to do in the future. It just doesn't do any good for anyone to shit on 0Ls for posting without correct the incorrect information--no one learns anything.

ftfy

[choculamaviva]

That's an argument from authority, which is a subset of ad hominem. It's usually a logical fallacy because it takes the form of questioning credentials rather than the substance of an argument. "You have less experience" is not a concrete reason why an assertion is wrong. The evidence I use in my posts is a combination of a) publicly available facts, and b) Anecdotal evidence collected from TLS, other web-based sources, and in-person conversations. I then use that information to make logical inferences and sometimes share my opinion on some particular situation based on that evidence. There's nothing I say that would require experience to know. Seriously, please tell me if you ever come across something I say that it would be impossible for a 0L to know. My assertion ITT was that the range of job satisfaction in Biglaw was broad, even if the average seemed to be relatively low. There's nothing in that statement that a 0L couldn't know. That statement is just as valid now as it would be if I were a fifth-year associate. So again, the experience factor is nearly always irrelevant.

Thanks for the insight. Can I get your contact info for some LSAT tutoring? The laughable thing here is that you don't even believe this yourself. For example, let's say two threads pop up on TLS. One is entitled "0L taking questions on top-law-schools.com, succeeding in law school, OCI interview tips, paths to COA and SCOTUS clerkships, and making partner at a large firm." The other says "V5 hiring partner taking questions on top-law-schools.com, succeeding in law school, OCI interview tips, paths to COA and SCOTUS clerkships, and making partner at a large firm." You will make inquiries in both with equal enthusiasm, no? I mean, experience is "nearly always irrelevant."

And when I share an opinion, it's particularly pointless, because you can only disagree with an opinion; it can't be "wrong."

Wrong again. Some opinions deviate so much from reality that they are absolutely wrong. If your opinion is that Justin Bieber is more talented than say, Wynton Marsalis, you are wrong. This sort of relativism is precisely what is causing so many problems in our political system.

Or to continue with your analogy that 0Ls are like virgins, nothing I say (or any 0L says, for that matter) is like sharing our sexual experiences, we're saying factual things like "some people use condoms during sex" or sharing opinions like "I don't think people should have sex until they're married"--situations in which a virgin's ideas would be, ceteris paribus, just as valid as Wilt Chamberlain's.

No, many 0L statements are much more in the territory of "What do breasts feel like? Virgin 0L: You know, when you, like, you grab a woman's breast and it's ... and you feel it and ... it feels like a bag of sand when you're touching it." Witness JDBB's recent whopper regarding "thinking like a lawyer." Moreover, to the extent that statements are so broad as to be irrefutable ("some people like BigLaw, some don't"), they add no value. The best you could provide would be the sort of wisdom that could easily be found by utilizing the search function.

In short: experience is extremely relevant. The criticism that was directed at you and JDBB would not have been voiced if you had offered tips on say, the LSAT or the law school application process. It was offered because you gave an opinion about something you quite obviously knew nothing about.

[jbagelboy]

That's an argument from authority, which is a subset of ad hominem. It's usually a logical fallacy because it takes the form of questioning credentials rather than the substance of an argument. "You have less experience" is not a concrete reason why an assertion is wrong. The evidence I use in my posts is a combination of a) publicly available facts, and b) Anecdotal evidence collected from TLS, other web-based sources, and in-person conversations. I then use that information to make logical inferences and sometimes share my opinion on some particular situation based on that evidence. There's nothing I say that would require experience to know. Seriously, please tell me if you ever come across something I say that it would be impossible for a 0L to know. My assertion ITT was that the range of job satisfaction in Biglaw was broad, even if the average seemed to be relatively low. There's nothing in that statement that a 0L couldn't know. That statement is just as valid now as it would be if I were a fifth-year associate. So again, the experience factor is nearly always irrelevant.

Thanks for the insight. Can I get your contact info for some LSAT tutoring? The laughable thing here is that you don't even believe this yourself. For example, let's say two threads pop up on TLS. One is entitled "0L taking questions on top-law-schools.com, succeeding in law school, OCI interview tips, paths to COA and SCOTUS clerkships, and making partner at a large firm." The other says "V5 hiring partner taking questions on top-law-schools.com, succeeding in law school, OCI interview tips, paths to COA and SCOTUS clerkships, and making partner at a large firm." You will make inquiries in both with equal enthusiasm, no? I mean, experience is "nearly always irrelevant."

And when I share an opinion, it's particularly pointless, because you can only disagree with an opinion; it can't be "wrong."

Wrong again. Some opinions deviate so much from reality that they are absolutely wrong. If your opinion is that Justin Bieber is more talented than say, Wynton Marsalis, you are wrong. This sort of relativism is precisely what is causing so many problems in our political system.

Or to continue with your analogy that 0Ls are like virgins, nothing I say (or any 0L says, for that matter) is like sharing our sexual experiences, we're saying factual things like "some people use condoms during sex" or sharing opinions like "I don't think people should have sex until they're married"--situations in which a virgin's ideas would be, ceteris paribus, just as valid as Wilt Chamberlain's.

No, many 0L statements are much more in the territory of "What do breasts feel like? Virgin 0L: You know, when you, like, you grab a woman's breast and it's ... and you feel it and ... it feels like a bag of sand when you're touching it." Witness JDBB's recent whopper regarding "thinking like a lawyer." Moreover, to the extent that statements are so broad as to be irrefutable ("some people like BigLaw, some don't"), they add no value.

In short: experience is extremely relevant. The criticism that was directed at you and JDBB would not have been voiced if you had offered tips on say, the LSAT or the law school application process. It was offered because you gave an opinion about something you quite obviously knew nothing about.

If you reread my posts you will appreciate that I am merely providing a perspective relayed to me by attorneys I am acquainted with, and these accounts featured into my considerations. I believe OP found my testimony to be helpful if only as a comparative example, and given this is his thread, it is all that matters. I do not take anything I hear without a careful dose of skepticism. I offered no tips on law schools or legal employment so please leave me out of this. I did say that some individuals enjoyed law school, and others despise it. As you said, it may be trite, but its irrefutable.

Also "JDBB"? Hmm. Born of anothers' ignorant facetiousness, and yet, I rather like it.

ETA: ill explain in simpler terms. Im not trying to educate anyone on the nature of the law without having completed law school myself. These are not hard truths. The thread asked a central question on whether it was worthwhile to go to law school. I found myself in a similar (albeit different in key respects) position a year ago and I reached out to state what I considered when choosing law school. Some of these are one-sided and very debateable (which I also said in my first post). No, perhaps a legal education does not grant a particular set of skills or a unique perspective. or at least yours didnt. others feel differently. I choose to be mildly less pessimistic because how will undo cynicism help me as a 1L? Ive done better in life being excited and purposeful than playing the cynic. it doesnt matter, la decision est prise and thats hardly the point. The value is not in any given "fact", its in the idea of how does one arrive at a life decision. I apologize if I presented my views as la seul verite.

[EijiMiyake]

I didn't read past page 1, so my apologies if this is redundant.

I was in a similar position to you, and have done a lot of reflecting lately about whether I made the right choice. Bottom line: the cost of law school has been very high for me, and if I had a redo, I would not do it again. And by cost, I'm not just referring to money. I think people really underrate the capacity of law school to completely disrupt your life, and the shit that you're attached to now might not be there when you come back.

Prior to law school, I spent 2 years working in a city that I loved, in a job that I disliked, but paid me about 80k a year. If I stayed, I would have been at 100k by year three, and would have been able to transition into any number of very solid business jobs, but probably not high finance (which didn't hold that much interest for me anyway), so there's a chance I would have topped out around the 100-120k mark for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I chose to go to HLS, and turned down full-rides from other schools to do so. I did not take the full-rides because I wanted to avoid big-law at any cost, and I felt like HLS gave me the best shot at doing so. It turns out that biglaw is much harder to avoid than I had anticipated. This is in part because some of the non-biglaw jobs I had my sights set on stopped hiring or had some other significant drawbacks that I didn't know about pre-law school. But it's also because the biglaw credential is so sought after that it makes sense to do it, and because I have about 120k in debt. (If you're at all thinking about public service, run the numbers on your school's LRAP plan and you'll see that it's actually relatively difficult to live on, which is why the vast majority of people I know that are going into public service do not have any significant debt to speak of.)

So, I will be spending at least a few years working biglaw in a city that I don't want to end up long term. (The wrong city aspect of this is completely my fault. I could have easily ended up in a firm in the city of my choice, but when I was going through OCI, I viewed 2L summer as a chance to try out a different city because I was still almost positive that I would not be going the biglaw route. But you should consider that many people end up in a big market not by choice, but because it's easier to find a job there.)

I did not particularly enjoy law school. And I will not particularly enjoy biglaw. And I'm far more worried about job security than I was in my old field. And if I failed the bar, I'll be out on my ass in just a few months. And it will take me at least 2 years just to get back to net worth 0, whereas if I hadn't gone, I would have had enough for a downpayment on a house by now. So assuming the sweet spot for lateralling into something I enjoy more starts in year 3, that's 6 years in my mid-twenties that I will spend far away from where I want to live and doing something that I don't particularly enjoy.

I am confident that I will eventually find a legal job that I like. But I also think I could have done any number of things that I would have found enjoyable, and I wouldn't have had to give up over half a decade to do so.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Thanks for the insight. Can I get your contact info for some LSAT tutoring? The laughable thing here is that you don't even believe this yourself. For example, let's say two threads pop up on TLS. One is entitled "0L taking questions on top-law-schools.com, succeeding in law school, OCI interview tips, paths to COA and SCOTUS clerkships, and making partner at a large firm." The other says "V5 hiring partner taking questions on top-law-schools.com, succeeding in law school, OCI interview tips, paths to COA and SCOTUS clerkships, and making partner at a large firm." You will make inquiries in both with equal enthusiasm, no? I mean, experience is "nearly always irrelevant."

I've talked to a few partners and more than a few 0Ls about law school, essentially asking them the same questions. Honestly, I found the 0L advice to be more useful, on the whole. I found that usually, their answers seemed to have more direct relevance to my situation/the current environment. The partners' advice is better for a few specific questions, like comparing grade cutoffs at various schools/how firms compare schools vs. grades. But on the general advice, like how to succeed in law school, the advice seems to be mostly the same among both groups--work hard, network, find a study strategy that suits you, etc. On some things, there is no magic formula that experience can bequeath. To reiterate, experience is useful in some situations. I just think there are many where it doesn't seem all that important. As I said, I don't think I've made any posts on issues that would require experience to understand properly. If I have, then I apologize.

Wrong again. Some opinions deviate so much from reality that they are absolutely wrong. If your opinion is that Justin Bieber is more talented than say, Wynton Marsalis, you are wrong. This sort of relativism is precisely what is causing so many problems in our political system.

If you think an opinion is without merit simply because it is very different than yours, I suppose conversations with you won't last that long. I'd just ask that you don't tell someone to "shut up" because you think they're wrong, despite having no objective evidence to believe that.

No, many 0L statements are much more in the territory of "What do breasts feel like? Virgin 0L: You know, when you, like, you grab a woman's breast and it's ... and you feel it and ... it feels like a bag of sand when you're touching it." Witness JDBB's recent whopper regarding "thinking like a lawyer." Moreover, to the extent that statements are so broad as to be irrefutable ("some people like BigLaw, some don't"), they add no value. The best you could provide would be the sort of wisdom that could easily be found by utilizing the search function.

In short: experience is extremely relevant. The criticism that was directed at you and JDBB would not have been voiced if you had offered tips on say, the LSAT or the law school application process. It was offered because you gave an opinion about something you quite obviously knew nothing about.

On the context of something that would specifically require experience to know AND would preclude someone without experience from knowing, I guess that's valid. I just think very few discussions meet those qualifications. As for statements that are unspecific/cautious, that tends to be my style. I guess it's not always necessarily informative, but it is better than misinformation along the lines of "everyone in Biglaw is miserable." Most threads are just open discussions on topics that would be of interest to 0Ls. If a statement is just not necessarily informative (as opposed to being factually incorrect), or is otherwise an opinion, I just don't see a need for anyone to jump in to shit on the 0Ls.

[blsingindisguise]

Great thread! You guys are really thinking like lawyers!

[paglababa]

I didn't read past page 1, so my apologies if this is redundant.

I was in a similar position to you, and have done a lot of reflecting lately about whether I made the right choice. Bottom line: the cost of law school has been very high for me, and if I had a redo, I would not do it again. And by cost, I'm not just referring to money. I think people really underrate the capacity of law school to completely disrupt your life, and the shit that you're attached to now might not be there when you come back.

Prior to law school, I spent 2 years working in a city that I loved, in a job that I disliked, but paid me about 80k a year. If I stayed, I would have been at 100k by year three, and would have been able to transition into any number of very solid business jobs, but probably not high finance (which didn't hold that much interest for me anyway), so there's a chance I would have topped out around the 100-120k mark for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I chose to go to HLS, and turned down full-rides from other schools to do so. I did not take the full-rides because I wanted to avoid big-law at any cost, and I felt like HLS gave me the best shot at doing so. It turns out that biglaw is much harder to avoid than I had anticipated. This is in part because some of the non-biglaw jobs I had my sights set on stopped hiring or had some other significant drawbacks that I didn't know about pre-law school. But it's also because the biglaw credential is so sought after that it makes sense to do it, and because I have about 120k in debt. (If you're at all thinking about public service, run the numbers on your school's LRAP plan and you'll see that it's actually relatively difficult to live on, which is why the vast majority of people I know that are going into public service do not have any significant debt to speak of.)

So, I will be spending at least a few years working biglaw in a city that I don't want to end up long term. (The wrong city aspect of this is completely my fault. I could have easily ended up in a firm in the city of my choice, but when I was going through OCI, I viewed 2L summer as a chance to try out a different city because I was still almost positive that I would not be going the biglaw route. But you should consider that many people end up in a big market not by choice, but because it's easier to find a job there.)

I did not particularly enjoy law school. And I will not particularly enjoy biglaw. And I'm far more worried about job security than I was in my old field. And if I failed the bar, I'll be out on my ass in just a few months. And it will take me at least 2 years just to get back to net worth 0, whereas if I hadn't gone, I would have had enough for a downpayment on a house by now. So assuming the sweet spot for lateralling into something I enjoy more starts in year 3, that's 6 years in my mid-twenties that I will spend far away from where I want to live and doing something that I don't particularly enjoy.

I am confident that I will eventually find a legal job that I like. But I also think I could have done any number of things that I would have found enjoyable, and I wouldn't have had to give up over half a decade to do so.

Just wanted to say this was a very insightful post - thank you for sharing.

[alexrodriguez]

This is all great reading.

[NYstate]

I didn't read past page 1, so my apologies if this is redundant.

I was in a similar position to you, and have done a lot of reflecting lately about whether I made the right choice. Bottom line: the cost of law school has been very high for me, and if I had a redo, I would not do it again. And by cost, I'm not just referring to money. I think people really underrate the capacity of law school to completely disrupt your life, and the shit that you're attached to now might not be there when you come back.

Prior to law school, I spent 2 years working in a city that I loved, in a job that I disliked, but paid me about 80k a year. If I stayed, I would have been at 100k by year three, and would have been able to transition into any number of very solid business jobs, but probably not high finance (which didn't hold that much interest for me anyway), so there's a chance I would have topped out around the 100-120k mark for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I chose to go to HLS, and turned down full-rides from other schools to do so. I did not take the full-rides because I wanted to avoid big-law at any cost, and I felt like HLS gave me the best shot at doing so. It turns out that biglaw is much harder to avoid than I had anticipated. This is in part because some of the non-biglaw jobs I had my sights set on stopped hiring or had some other significant drawbacks that I didn't know about pre-law school. But it's also because the biglaw credential is so sought after that it makes sense to do it, and because I have about 120k in debt. (If you're at all thinking about public service, run the numbers on your school's LRAP plan and you'll see that it's actually relatively difficult to live on, which is why the vast majority of people I know that are going into public service do not have any significant debt to speak of.)

So, I will be spending at least a few years working biglaw in a city that I don't want to end up long term. (The wrong city aspect of this is completely my fault. I could have easily ended up in a firm in the city of my choice, but when I was going through OCI, I viewed 2L summer as a chance to try out a different city because I was still almost positive that I would not be going the biglaw route. But you should consider that many people end up in a big market not by choice, but because it's easier to find a job there.)

I did not particularly enjoy law school. And I will not particularly enjoy biglaw. And I'm far more worried about job security than I was in my old field. And if I failed the bar, I'll be out on my ass in just a few months. And it will take me at least 2 years just to get back to net worth 0, whereas if I hadn't gone, I would have had enough for a downpayment on a house by now. So assuming the sweet spot for lateralling into something I enjoy more starts in year 3, that's 6 years in my mid-twenties that I will spend far away from where I want to live and doing something that I don't particularly enjoy.

I am confident that I will eventually find a legal job that I like. But I also think I could have done any number of things that I would have found enjoyable, and I wouldn't have had to give up over half a decade to do so.

Thank you for posting this. Your insight is valuable. More people should read this. Most everyone on this board would say that going to Harvard was the right move in your situation because they believe that H counters all possible ills.

[choculamaviva]

I didn't read past page 1, so my apologies if this is redundant.

I was in a similar position to you, and have done a lot of reflecting lately about whether I made the right choice. Bottom line: the cost of law school has been very high for me, and if I had a redo, I would not do it again. And by cost, I'm not just referring to money. I think people really underrate the capacity of law school to completely disrupt your life, and the shit that you're attached to now might not be there when you come back.

Prior to law school, I spent 2 years working in a city that I loved, in a job that I disliked, but paid me about 80k a year. If I stayed, I would have been at 100k by year three, and would have been able to transition into any number of very solid business jobs, but probably not high finance (which didn't hold that much interest for me anyway), so there's a chance I would have topped out around the 100-120k mark for the foreseeable future.

Instead, I chose to go to HLS, and turned down full-rides from other schools to do so. I did not take the full-rides because I wanted to avoid big-law at any cost, and I felt like HLS gave me the best shot at doing so. It turns out that biglaw is much harder to avoid than I had anticipated. This is in part because some of the non-biglaw jobs I had my sights set on stopped hiring or had some other significant drawbacks that I didn't know about pre-law school. But it's also because the biglaw credential is so sought after that it makes sense to do it, and because I have about 120k in debt. (If you're at all thinking about public service, run the numbers on your school's LRAP plan and you'll see that it's actually relatively difficult to live on, which is why the vast majority of people I know that are going into public service do not have any significant debt to speak of.)

So, I will be spending at least a few years working biglaw in a city that I don't want to end up long term. (The wrong city aspect of this is completely my fault. I could have easily ended up in a firm in the city of my choice, but when I was going through OCI, I viewed 2L summer as a chance to try out a different city because I was still almost positive that I would not be going the biglaw route. But you should consider that many people end up in a big market not by choice, but because it's easier to find a job there.)

I did not particularly enjoy law school. And I will not particularly enjoy biglaw. And I'm far more worried about job security than I was in my old field. And if I failed the bar, I'll be out on my ass in just a few months. And it will take me at least 2 years just to get back to net worth 0, whereas if I hadn't gone, I would have had enough for a downpayment on a house by now. So assuming the sweet spot for lateralling into something I enjoy more starts in year 3, that's 6 years in my mid-twenties that I will spend far away from where I want to live and doing something that I don't particularly enjoy.

I am confident that I will eventually find a legal job that I like. But I also think I could have done any number of things that I would have found enjoyable, and I wouldn't have had to give up over half a decade to do so.

thanks for this post. I think the real difference between your situation and most of the individuals on this board is that your goal was to avoid big law and their goal is to attain it. That said, in my opinion, most of these individuals have very little idea of what awaits them in that environment. they are vaguely aware of associate dissatisfaction in the abstract, but not in any real sense.All they are really seeing are the dollar signs or a career path that doesn't punish them for having an English degree. Unfortunately, even from a financial standpoint, biglaw rarely makes sense, apart from the lucky individuals who have full rides to schools that nevertheless allow them to obtain such jobs. Even then,if people are relieved of their financial burdens,I would advise them to attempt to develop a niche skill with a small firm that eventually gives them greater control over their life, or if they are passionate about it, to pursue becoming a public defender or prosecutor.those are the only two areas where I have seen a fairly high level of job satisfaction.in short, I don't think biglaw is worth the sacrifice, financially or otherwise, even for a person who doesn't have a decent job prior to our school. instead it is a recipe for having an early midlife crisis at the age of 30. I sympathize with the original poster because it is difficult to pursue other avenues from his position. However, in my opinion law school is much much more likely to make his situation worse, not better.my apologies for any grammatical errors, I'm dictating this from my phone. Also, to monochromatic,I would only note that you can't even know whose advice has been more helpful as you have not had a chance to act on it yet in the law school context. If experience and success are so irrelevant, I would advise you to seek out the bottom dwellers from the class ahead of you for study tips. or just consult with fellow 0Ls as you have been doing. Whatever you do, don't obtain advice from the successful students in the classes ahead of you. it really shouldn't make any difference and everyone's opinion should also be equally valid correct? After all, opinions can't be objectively wrong. it's not as if one opinion could be uninformed and another informed. please let us know how this strategy works out for you.